Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Creatures of Impulse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Creatures of Impulse

Toolbox

While a fairly minor play by Gilbert, Creatures of Impulse is, nonetheless, a quite interesting play, and remained popular for a good sixty years or so, and is still occasionally performed today. A great deal of work has gone into this article, including Peer reviews by Maria (for GA), User:Awadewit, and User:Ealdgyth (Peer review It has been carefully copyedited by User:Finetooth. There is a limited amount of commentary on this short story and play; most of it appears in this article in some form. Perhaps if I get published we can say more, but until now, that's OR. =). Eh, It's late and I ramble, and none of you care what I have to say: It's the article that matters - so have a look and see what you think! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Co-nomination – This play pre-dates Gilbert's famous collaboration with Arthur Sullivan and demonstrates the early development of Gilbert's famous "Topsy-Turvy" humor, where an absurd premise is followed to its logical conclusion. Gilbert later used this unique style of humor and satire in the highly successful series of Savoy operas. It also shows Gilbert's lifelong interest in supernatural transformations, a theme which he included in a few of the Savoy operas. I agree that all known sources of significant information about this play have been consulted in writing the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Please close and archive the peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no excuse now, after a template was added to the nomination preview page that instructed to do this ;) Gary King (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Did it myself so I wouldn't have to keep checking back (open peer reviews stall the FAC closing bot). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Some web references are missing publishers. Gary King (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Why not link to the Randegger biography directly on Allmusic.com? indopug (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments As mentioned, I checked the sources at PR. My concerns were addressed, things look pretty good. Links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • The "synopsis" notes should really be footnotes - there's nothing wrong in mixing citations with footnotes.
  • I'm going to have to at least partially disagree - the play is at least equally important as the short story, so moving the differences between the two to references (which noone reads) would give too little weight to important information. I suppose that the footnotes could instead be converted to prose, if you like? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Redundant redundancy is bad when it's bad redundancy and redundant:
  • "The play also gives three numbered villagers some dialogue in its opening scene." - pretty self-explanatory
  • "The short story makes explicit some elements only hinted at in the play:" - pretty self-explanatory
  • "Italian-born Alberto Randegger was better known as a conductor than as a composer, although he produced a number of works in England in the 1860s and 1870s." - obviously he produced a number of them; in fact, not only that, but he produced a number in the subset of complex numbers known as the positive integers.
  • "It originally included six songs, but this was eventually reduced to three, and some productions dispensed with the music entirely." - arguable, but I believe "this" contributes nothing to the sentence.
  • If you're sourcing the lead, you need to source everything, not just some things.
  • I agree and have removed the cites from the LEAD. The same cites are all given below in the fuller discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't "composer-conductor" be "composer/conductor"?
    • I think the former reads a little better. Slashes are distracting =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm unsure whether "Gilbert, who had..." should be "Gilbert, whom had...".
  • I don't think so - it's subjective case, not objective. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "While the lyrics survive, the music was never published and is now lost." - change of tenses in the middle of the sentence. The present tense makes no sense with the second part, so I suggest changing "survive" to "survived" - it still makes perfect sense that way.
    • Wouldn't that put it in conflict with the "is" in is lost, or force us to say "was lost", which... seems a little odd phrasing, given its loss was a passive process. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "criticised for the lack of a significant plot or superstructure behind the fun." - behind "the fun"? I'm really unsure about that wording.
  • Fixed. Thanks for the comments. Please let us know if you have further questions about any of my replies above or feel that any of these items should be revisited. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 00:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - I'm fine with the things you disagree with - the redundancy comment was referring to the examples of redundancy I provided below it. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)